Re: [OSPF] Gen-ART Review of draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-18

[Acee Lindem <acee at redback.com>]

Hi Christian,

Actually, I misstated the intent of the document below. OSPFv3 requires IPv6 and is specifically designed to over it. It can be extended to advertise reachability information for other address families (e.g., IPv4) as well and there is more than one draft stating how this should be done. However, this is not fully specified in this document. I've attempted to clarify this by including the version numbers in the first reference in the abstract and introduction. 

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-21.txt

Thanks,

Acee

On Apr 14, 2008, at 3:38 PM, Christian Vogt wrote:

Hi Acee,

thanks for addressing these comments.  Your explanation regarding virtual links is convincing, so the corresponding text should be left as is in the document.

Take care,

- Christian

On Apr 14, 2008, at 19:38, Acee Lindem wrote:

Hi Christian,

Thanks taking the time to review this large document. See inline.

On Apr 10, 2008, at 6:05 AM, Christian Vogt wrote:

I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)

reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see

http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call

comments you may receive.

Document:  draft-ietf-ospf-ospfv3-update-18.txt

Reviewer:  Christian Vogt

Review Date:  April 10, 2008

Summary:  This draft is ready for publication as a Proposed

          Standard RFC.

Comments:

This document specifies OSPF for IPv6 networks.  It is very well

written, clear overall, structured, and easily understandable.  I

suggest this document to move forward in the publication process.

Few comments that should be addressed on this way:

(1)  The document, in particular abstract and introduction, is

     ambiguous on whether (a) it describes extensions/modifications

     to OSPF for IPv6 support, which would result in an OSPF version

     for both IPv4 and IPv6, or whether (b) it is a separate OSPF

     version specifically for IPv6.  The first sentence of the

     abstract implies (a).  But later the abstract implies (b),

     because it says that authentication mechanisms have been replaced

     by IPv6-specific ones, leaving no authentications means for IPv4.

     Then again, the increment of the OSPF version number specified in

     section 2.7 indicates that (a) is the case.  Please clarify the

     purpose and content of the document early in the abstract and

     introduction.

As you surmised, it is (a). I'll make sure this is clear.

(2)  The document is very consistent WRT to introducing all acronyms

     (by spelling them out) when they appear first.  Do this for "LSA"

     also.  See 2nd paragraph of abstract.

I added a bunch of these. I'll make sure I get this one and I'll check for other acronyms that require expansion.

(3)  In section 2.5, a special source address selection rule is

     defined for virtual links.  Is this rule needed specifically for

     OSPF, or is it specific to virtual links?  If the latter was the

     case, would it make sense to define this rule more generally in an

     IPv6 document?

I'd have to say this rule is specific to OSPFv3 virtual links. I think the meaning of "virtual link" varies depending on the context so I wouldn't try and define behavior beyond OSPFv3. For example, in one context a "virtual link" might imply a tunnel while it the OSPFv3 sense it is a multi-hop adjacency implying any OSPF path through the transit area can be used for backbone routing.

Thanks,

Acee

Good luck with the publication,

- Christian

_______________________________________________
OSPF mailing list
OSPF at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ospf